Here’s another dichotomy that I’m waiting for someone to dispute.
One is either:
a) An atheist
b) Does not fully understand evolution or the scientific method (or selectively chooses not to apply their understanding of these things).
I really don’t see an option c) here. Yes, I do realise that that comes across as smug, but I’m being genuine. If one understands how life can arise through natural means, and that the world looks exactly as we would expect it to look if its existence was purely natural, then one would apply Occam’s Razor and poof, the need for any kind of supernatural deity disappears. The only reason I can see for holding a religious belief is that one has not had an adequate scientific education. (Note: I’m not trying to sound all blame-y, here. I think science education desperately needs a re-vamp, even in countries where evolution is taught as part of the curriculum).
I’m sure most intelligent religious people are those who do understand how evolution works and have (consciously or unconsciously) made the decision not to follow that understanding to its logical conclusion. I have no idea why they would make that decision, though. Hmm.
These thoughts brought to you by a commenter on another blog who wrote:
“If your reasoning faculties are the result of mere chance + time, and not order, how can they be relied on?”
1) Evolution through natural selection is not the same thing as “mere chance”. I mean, seriously? Try reading a book at some point. An introductory high school biology text book would do. Yeesh.
2) Reasoning faculties can be relied upon precisely because they are the result of evolution. If they were not reliable and not useful, then humans would not have evolved to have them. How does this basic logic just… sail over peoples’ heads?
Alright. Next post will be about something less frustrating, I promise.